Table Of ContentView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE
provided by HAL-MINES ParisTech
Managing radical innovation as an innovative design
process: generative constraints and cumulative sets of
rules
Pierre-Antoine Arrighi, Pascal Le Masson, Benoit Weil
To cite this version:
Pierre-Antoine Arrighi, Pascal Le Masson, Benoit Weil. Managing radical innovation as an
innovative design process: generative constraints and cumulative sets of rules. Creativity
and Innovation Management, Wiley, 2015, 24 (3), pp.373-390. <10.1111/caim.12135>. <hal-
01199932>
HAL Id: hal-01199932
https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01199932
Submitted on 17 Sep 2015
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destin´ee au d´epˆot et `a la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publi´es ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from ´emanant des ´etablissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche fran¸cais ou ´etrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou priv´es.
Arrighi P-A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2015) Managing radical innovation as an innovative design process:
generativeconstraints and cumulative set of rules. Creativity and Innovation Management 24
(3):373-390.
Managing radical innovation as an innovative design process: generative
constraints and cumulative sets of rules
Authors: Arrighi, Pierre-Antoine ;Le Masson, Pascal ; Weil, Benoit
ABSTRACT
This paper focuses on the organization of design processes and the difficulty
of simultaneously achieving control and exploration while aiming to achieve radical
innovation. After a first generation of works that tended to oppose NPD processes
(with controlled convergence and very limited exploration) to Innovation processes
(with poorly controlled convergence and random (uncontrolled) exploration, the new
generation of works proposed ways to combine control and convergence either
through concept shift or through stable architectures. Relying a generic analytical
framework (design space / value management) it appears that each model makes
restrictive hypotheses (respectively smart leadership or stable architecture) to
address two critical questions: Q1. How can one increase the efficiency of
exploration? Q2. How can one ensure forms of cumulative convergence? Relying on
the ame analytical framework we analyze two cases that explore the unknown in a
controlled way and still don’t correspond two either of the two models. We show that
these two anomalies and the two models actually have two critical features in
common: a focus on generative constraint and a logic of cumulative design rules. As
a consequence these two features might generic to several processes where teams
have to explore the unknown and still have to keep a rigorous control of exploration
and convergence.
INTRODUCTION
Modern product design teams have to develop new, creativeproducts that
integrate original features that arehighly new to their technical or market experience.
These radical or discontinuous innovations (Veryzer 1998)require development
processes that go beyond NPD practices based upon optimization and planning. They
require, for instance, exploration, “try and learn”(Sommer et Loch 2004), learning and
new competence management (Christianson et al. 2005) or creativity (Badke-Schaub,
Goldschmidt et Meijer 2010). These development processes have inspired specific
research works. In the 1990s, a first generation of research expressed and analyzed a
strong trade-off between the monitoring of the creative breakthrough (meaning its
control) and the capacity to explore and learn during the process. New product
development processes have proven efficient for control and risk management(Clark
et Fujimoto 1991),but these processeslack flexibility and are negatively related to
innovation and creativity productivity (Harmancioglu et al. 2007). Research on radical
innovation(Van de Ven et al. 1999)tends to demonstrate that deep and durable
explorations follow ill-defined processes and that convergence control is difficult.
1
To address these issues, a second generation of theories attempted to bridge
these two tendencies by providing simultaneously for control and exploration. We can
identify two streams of research. On the one hand, in the “modular process” model
(Sanchez et Mahoney 1996; MacCormack, Verganti et Iansiti 2001), control is
guaranteed by the architecture of the product. In this model, explorationand creativity
can occur at the level of “modular components” that are loosely coupled to the
platform (Gawer 2009). Hence, the product architecture “monitors” the exploration,
both framing and supporting it. On the other hand, in the concept shift process model
(Seidel, 2007), designers canexplore a product concept not only in the fuzzy front-end
phases but also late in the process, achievinga concept shift by modifying the
concept’s components. In this case, convergence and divergence dependupon
leadership and team practices. The first model relies on a “structural hypothesis” (a
stable structure, the architecture of the product, warrants the exploration process); the
second model on a “leadership hypothesis” (the quality of leaders warrants the quality
of the initial concepts and the subsequent exploration).
Beyond their differences, these two models have a lot in common. In
particular, we will show that they both rely on a strong “shift” in the approach of
exploration monitoring. Whereas the first generation of works tended to limit
monitoring and management to decision-making and selection of the “best
alternative”, the modular process or the concept shift approaches consider that process
management also includes support forthe divergent, exploratory and creative part of
the process. This is in line with recent works on design processes and cognitive
processes that show that managing creative innovative design processes actually
consists in managing “de-fixation” (Archer 1965; Jansson et Smith 1991; Bonnardel
et Marmèche 2004; Agogué et al. 2014; Le Masson, Hatchuel et Weil 2011). Instead
of managing planning and selection, the design process tends to manage efficient
divergence and knowledge accumulation. In this design perspective, the management
of radical (or creative) innovation process actually raises two questions that we will
address in this paper: Q1: how to manage the process to prevent “fixation”? andQ2:
how to organize a cumulative process linking the multiple exploratory phases? We
show more specifically that radical innovation process management actually requires
a capacity to address “generative constraints” (i.e., identify critical issue and work
them out in a creative way (Result 1) and to accumulate the knowledge acquired in
the exploratory phases into a coherent set of rules (Result 2).
To answer these research questions, we first analyze how the two models,
modular and concept shift processes, already propose partial answers; we also show
that these two models seem to rely on specific conditions (product structure or
leadership quality). To generalize these models and underline the deep similarities
between them, we need to discuss theselimiting conditions. To this end, we rely upon
case studies to exhibit two counterexamples that show that these conditions are
actually unnecessary. Hence, we show that it is possible to generalize the last two
models and to see a deep correspondence between them.
To do this, we identified two relevant cases thatappear at first to very
closelyresemble the two archetypal models: 1) a first case is very close to a
2
prototypical“modular process” because there are many “constraints” (just like a
modular process is constrained by the product architecture), and we show that these
constraints will actually be the support for a creative solution (and in particular, these
constraints lead to an innovative product architecture); 2) the second case isvery close
to a free concept shift (because people are able to strongly diverge from the initial
concept), and we show that this shift actually relies upon technical tools to focus
exploration and to accumulate the results. To follow the design process, we use a
novel way of analyzing it. We tracked the data generated by computer-aided design
(CAD) tools. These data were supplementedby interviews with the designers for
better understanding and verification.
We first introduce the theoretical background that leads to a gap in research
and theassociated research questions. We then detail our method with a presentation
of the cases studied, data collected, and interviews conducted. Then, the performance
of the processes and how these processes are related to the existing literature are
analyzed, the results are discussed, and the conclusions are presented.
THE TENSION BETWEEN CONTROL AND EXPLORATION IN
INNOVATION PROCESSES
The difficulty of reachingand monitoringradical innovation
Because radical or discontinuous innovations play an important role in
building competitive advantage and can contribute significantly to a firm’s growth
and profitability, increasing attention has been paid to innovation management at a
time when businesses face severe competition that new product development (NPD)
solutions fail to fully address(Cooper et Kleinschmidt 1993).Much of the effort to
improve NPD has focused on the process as it relates to product improvements.As
formulated by Utterback(Utterback et Abernathy 1975)forty years ago, there are
drastic inconsistencies between activities focused on productivity improvements and
cost reductions and those focused on innovation and flexibility. However, both
typesof activities are important for firms’ survival.
Radical innovation is occasionally referred to as discontinuous innovation, in
opposition to incremental innovation. We follow the definition given by Veryzer
(1998).Adiscontinuous innovation is a (strong) change of product capability and
technological capability, i.e., the product is commercially discontinuous and/or
technologically discontinuous. This definition accounts both for changes in the
benefits of the products as perceived or experienced by the customers/users
experience and/or changes in the technologies used to design the product. The product
contains a “creative” part in the sense that it is original (different from the other
products) from commercial or from technological point of view.
A literature review of two specific generations of design process models and
recommendations will illustrate the strong rise of radical innovation research and
leading propositions for achieving it with success.
In the 1990s, two main tendencies in the literature could be identified.The first
was the formulation of a sequential and determined process, the NPDprocess,which
3
isnow widely recognized as a key to corporate prosperity(Clark et Fujimoto
1991).The artificial division of the process provides management with a quality
control structure in which each “gate” represents an opportunity to recognize and stop
the progress of a failing project. When the criteria for passing each gate are chosen
wisely, following this prescribed process is one way of assuring the quality of the
resulting product (Ulrich et Eppinger 2008).However, Cooper (Cooper 1994), who
coined the concept of a “Stage-Gate” process, argues there are many practical
weaknesses to this form of tight control.The system can be inefficient such that
projects must wait at a gate until all necessary activities have been completed. The
overlapping of stages is impossible in most cases, although this overlap is often
desirable when radical innovation is needed. Modularity is even more difficult to
consider.There can be high bureaucratic overheads at each gate, and the individual
project perspective means there is little provision for managing the division of
resources across a portfolio.In the end, the Stage-Gateprocess is said to result in lower
risk, immediate reward, and incremental project development (McDermott et
O'Connor 2002), but it is negatively related to innovation productivity (Harmancioglu
et al. 2007). Furthermore, Christiansen andVarnes(Christiansen et Varnes 2009)have
shown that, despite their claims, many organizations do notactually use Stage-Gate
processes.
Scholars havealso focused on stories of breakthrough innovations. In “The Innovation
Journey”(Van de Ven et al. 1999), the design process is described as an innovation
journey in whichpractitioners are mostly driven by seemingly chaotic events.This
journey is also highly unpredictable and uncontrollable because a sequence of chance
“blind” events cannot be anticipated. The authors observed an orderly periodic
progression of stages or phases. As a result, the authorshold that no theory could reach
the precision necessary to advise managers on exactly what to do and how an
innovation will turn out or even how to evaluate its risks or potential outcomes. In the
end, the innovation process as described in the “innovation journey” is neither
sequential nor a matter of random trialanderror; rather, it should be characterized as a
“nonlinear dynamic system”(Cheng et Ven 1996). This type of process can lead to
radical innovation, as shown by the results of a cochlear implant case study, but they
are extremely complex to manage and can require very long developments (15 years
in the study case) for the program to reach full growth.
Hence, this literature underlines a tension between the managerial logic of decision
and control on the one hand and the creative logic of exploration required for radical
innovation on the other hand.
Modularity and concept shifts:A good fit for managing radical innovation
In a second generation of works, some scholars have studied the apparent
contradiction between control and exploration in radical innovation processes. Instead
of considering control and explorationasopposing entities,they have proposed ways of
combining them. Two approaches have been identifiedto achieve this goal.
Modularity
4
Sanchez and Mahoney (Sanchez et Mahoney 1996) proposed moving from a
sequential process to a more modular way of designing products.As a first step, they
propose implementing earlier development constraints and changing the organization
from sequential and overlapping problemsolving to modular organizationof the
product development process.This is the ideal organization with which to address
modular product architecture(Sanchez 1995).In modular product design, standardized
interfaces among components are specified to allow for a range of variationsin
components to be substituted into the product architecture (Baldwin and Woodard,
2008).The product architecture must optimize the operating performance of the
product yet also facilitate making changes to the product design as new information
emerges (MacCormack, Verganti et Iansiti 2001). This flexibility is supported by
modular components, which are components whose interface characteristics are
within the range of variations allowed by modular product architecture.This flexible
process is characterized by the ability to generate and respond to new information for
a longer portion of a development cycle.Product variations can be leveraged by
substituting (Garud et Kumaraswamy 1993) different modular components into the
product architecture without having to redesign other components. This loose
coupling of component designs within modular product architecture allows the
“mixing and matching” of modular components to give a potentially large number of
product variations distinctive functionalities, features, and/or performance levels
(Sanchez 1995).The high degree of independence or “loose coupling” is also critical
for designers to bring about radical innovation by working on the componentsthat are
the most flexible in the architecture.
A modular product architecture provides a form of embedded coordination that
greatly reduces the need for the overt exercise of managerial authority to achieve
coordination of development processes. Processes for learning at both the
architectural and component levels become more efficient.This process requires that
component development begins when the architecture is defined, therefore the
revision of an already specified architecture is no longer possible at the module
development stage.
Fuzzyfront-end and concept shift
Another approach to reach radical innovation performance is to modify the
NPD framework. Because the design process is a succession of divergent and
convergent phases, some researchers have proposed a strong divergence at the
beginning of the process.This literature focuses on the front-end of the process, which
includes a product concept statement and evaluation, product definition, and project
planning (Khurana et Rosenthal 1998). The fuzzyfront-end of the NPD process is
defined to include the stages prior to the actual development of a new product (Ozer
2007).Its performance, by first allowing for greater exploration and divergence at the
beginning of the process, can lead to better NPD projects. The firms are able to move
faster than their competitors and are more likely to introduce a winning product.
"Well begun is more than half done," as stated by one of the practitionerswe
interviewed.
5
A similar but enhanced proposal can be found in the notion of concept shifting
introduced by Seidel (Seidel 2007). Becauseinitial divergence is sometimes
insufficient, it could be needed later in the process.This divergence is, indeed, the
capacity to modify the initial concept and derive new concepts from it. The concepts
and knowledge are all stored. This approach is a good answer to radical innovation
contexts,which can pose considerable challenges to product development teams.
Goals can be unclear and changing, and existing organizational processes may be
inappropriate or not well developed. Product development team members initiate a
changewhen a concept component is found to no longer fit with technical abilities or
to no longer match emergent market needs.Initial concept components (stories, new
vocabulary, and prototypes) in these radical innovation cases were employed to
provide a starting point, not a complete product.
A common framework to compare the two process models.
To assess how these types of processes drive the exploration and control of an
innovation breakthrough, we use a very simple, generic model of the design process
(Hatchuel, Le Masson et Weil 2005). The design-spaces-value-management (DS-VM)
model allows us to analyze learning and the control of convergence and is adapted to
the design of products with high technical specifications. This modelis based on the
notion of design space (DS), which is defined as a collective working space where
designers can act in a way that enables them to learn about what they want to learn for
their overall design process. The DSs refer to the learning phases;at the value
management level, design spacesare designated (top-down arrow) and knowledge
produced in design spaces (bottom-up arrow) is integrated. A development process
appears as a sequence of DSs, each DS being derived from the VM layer and feeding
the value management level in return. All the acquired results of a development
process appear at the value management level, designed product(s) as well as acquired
knowledge (new validated routines and competences, etc.).
In this framework, we can characterize the modular design process (see Figure 1
below). The architecture pre-exists, or it is considered to have been designed and
validated inside a preliminary Design Space in charge of exploring “architecture”
alternatives. Then, the design spaces for modular components are explored
simultaneously. It clearly appears that product architecture structures value
management; it supports the explorations and enables to integrate the results into
product(s). Each modular component design space is in charge of organizing a good
fit with changing external (e.g., market) conditions. The initial architecture cannot be
revised once the architecture has been validated. In fact, there is a deep separation
(represented by the vertical dashed line) between the “architecture” DS and
subsequent steps. Turnover is not possible once the subsequent steps have been
reached. Concept shifts are strictly impossible, as are even slight modifications of the
architecture.
6
Figure 1: Model 1: DSVM model of modular design process
In the concept shift model, the DS can be simultaneously or sequentially explored.
New concepts or variations of the initial concept are elaborated in design spaces and
then integrated at the value management level. How are the design spaces designated?
Seidel stated that concept shift occurs “when a concept component was found to no
longer fit with technical abilities or match emergent market needs,” which is rather
imprecise. How does one make use of the knowledge acquired in a design space? As
stated by Seidel, every concept is stored, which allows for large possibilities for
exploration. However,one cannot be sure that the generated concepts will be useful
and contribute to the VM of the full project if a new shift occurs. How can we control
the direction, duration, and moment of exploration if the finding of new concepts is
not serendipitous? In the concept shift model, these questions are left to further
research.
Figure 2: Model 2: DSVM model of the concept-shifting process
We now better understand the common issues and differences between the two
models:
1- Common features: To combine exploration and control, the two models (modular
design and concept shift) keep phases for explorations (modular component design or
7
phases of concept exploration in the process) and describe an integration level
(product architecture or concepts storage). In doing so, the two models considerably
shift the perspective on radical innovation development processes:
a- Control is no more in the selection of the “best” alternative. It can also be in
the designation of the appropriate “design space”– an appropriate design
space for modular component development or appropriate design space for
concept exploration. The control of exploration also consists in controlling the
“divergence” quality. It is interesting to underline that this approach is in full
coherence with the most recent advances in design theory and creativity
cognition. These works have shown that managing innovative design
processes actually consists in managing “de-fixation” (Archer 1965; Jansson et
Smith 1991; Bonnardel et Marmèche 2004; Agogué et al. 2014; Le Masson,
Hatchuel et Weil 2011). Instead of managing selection, the design process
tends to manage efficient divergence.
b- Control is not necessarily in the convergence towards a final product. In the
modular design process, several complementary modular components can
result from the process (i.e., a family of products sharing a common
architecture); in the concept shift process, several concepts are stored, and it is
uncertain which concept will be finally successfully developed. The control of
convergence can also consist ofaccumulating the knowledge acquired along
with the explorations.Again, this convergence is in full coherence with recent
advances in engineering design, which has long shown the importance of
knowledge and competence accumulation to support the design process(Pahl
et Beitz 2006), not only for “continuous innovation” but also for creativity
(Cropley 2006).
2- Differences: Both models rely on specific conditions. In modular design, the
product architecture is a key asset to support explorations and to integrate the results
from these explorations. We can say that the modular design process relies on a
“structural” condition. Incontrast, concept shift does not assume the structural stability
of the product; it leaves “shifting ability” to process leaders and participants. This is a
“leadership condition.”
We can summarize these common features and differences in the table below,
underlining the conditions that enable, in each model, the balance between
exploration and convergence:
Models Modular Concept shift
Exploration Inside modular Based on concept shift
components
Convergence Inside an existing Based on the leader
architecture capacities
Condition A stable architecture A powerful smart leader
(hypothesis of structural who balances
stability) that enables convergence and
(and limits) exploration exploration
8
in modules
Table 1: Synthesis of both models’ capacities
It appear that the balance between exploration and convergence is based on
limiting conditions. Still are these conditions really necessary? Can we find processes
that don’t meet the condition and still exhibit good exploration (Q1) and good
convergence (Q2)? Let us now more precisely analysethe questions Q1 and Q2.
Focus on the intensity of the breakthrough
The first issueto be addressed in a major innovation process is the capacity to monitor
the amplitude and direction of the wanted radical innovation breakthrough. This is a
common feature of both models. In modular processes, the “architecture” enables the
modular exploration; in concept shift, the actors are free to shift even late in the
process.
Still, these two processes tend also to “limit” the monitoring of convergence by
specific conditions. In modular processes, the breakthrough is framed and bounded
inside the modules. The main and unbreakable constraint lies in the fixed architecture.
In the concept shift process, the breakthrough is weakly driven because the link
between concepts remains obscure, if not mysterious. This breakthroughdepends on
the personal qualities of leaders and team members. Questions remain about their
shared properties and the criticaldifferenceslikely to bring success to one or all of the
concepts.
However, are these conditions really necessary? It seemspossible to manage richer,
stronger, and more orientedbreakthroughs. In themodular model framework,it would
be ideal to make a breakthrough innovation possible in the architecture not only
within the components.In theconcept shift framework,the breakthrough is possible,
but its amplification and the capacity to manage itwithin the concept-shifting model
would be interesting.Therefore, our first research question is:
Q1: How can we monitor the amplitude and direction of exploration without
necessarily relying on a stable architecture (Q1-a) or on leadership (Q1-b)?
Focus on the convergence criteria of a radical innovation project
In the modular model, the convergence is guaranteed by the architecture and the
decoupling of the respective sub-systems. Everything that has been learned at a
component level will be re-integratedwithin the global process due to the initial
architecture phase.Inthe concept shift model,there is a strong accumulation of
knowledge linked to the various explored concepts, but it is difficult or occasionally
even impossible to identify what actually has to be stored. Value identification could
be problematic.Therefore,our second research question is:
Q2: How can we organize a more cumulative convergence without necessarily
relying on a stable architecture (Q2-a) or on leadership (Q2-b)?
METHOD
Methodological approach: why case studies?
9
Description:Pierre-Antoine Arrighi, Pascal Le Masson, Benoit Weil Le Masson P, Weil B (2015) Managing radical innovation as an innovative design process:.
